Yea its a long time to wait however they did state that this DLC will have 6 maps.

I would say, they should take the time they need. Balancing the multitude of game modes is not a trivial task, as evidenced by the pretty great TNSP DLC but lacking in certain areas, e.g Verdun Heights on CQ and OP.

Its too early to tell at this point, but the quality of this DLC seems to be extremely high, not to mention that they are expanding the scope from 4 to 6 maps, which I think is great.

There are a few minor BF firsts too like the oh so controversial female soldier. Don't see the issue with having a magnifying glass on history in a freaking Battlefield game but hey, people need to whine about something that does not involve cohesive game play critique. I think that is rather interesting and potentially adds further character to the DLC, plus it also forced me to read into Russian WW1 military doctrine which is always a good thing.

I do hope that Double Barrel Shotgun has a SLUG variant and/or the ability to switch from Single to Double shot as was the case in Hardline. Reckon that MG14/17 will fire fast, (Betting 650-700 RPM) witha lower damage in a similar vain to Bad Company 2's MG3, which fired at 1000RPM doing 11.2 - 10.5 DMG. That was a damn fun gun.

Mosin Looks amazing too. Not sure what they did with it stat wise, perhaps a very slow firing but extensive sweetspot? Who knows at this point

Also 11 NEW WEAPONS? If they are not including Melee weapons in that, that is obscenely good, perhaps they could consider making some of them free as was the case with Hardline. They didnt with TNSP so here's being hopeful.

Seems that adding Nivelle Nights + Prise to the French DLC is a way to make TNSP seem beefier. They should really do some FREE maps in the mean time though.

Also not exactly related, but I was going through the BC2 weapon stats again. I couldn't help but notice that weapon spread seems to be much more severe than BF1. This is in line with what I remembered as I used to single shot every single gun for the most part (and rarely ADS). Wonder why BC2 spread is ok and BF1 isn't hmm

they are definitely counting melee weapons in that, remember what they did with the last dlc...

in my opinion anyanway, it's better to have 1 map a month for 6 months than 6 maps after 6 months(obviously that's not how it would work for a dlc, but i just wanted to find a way to say it when i can't find the words)

Yeah well, what can I say. I have no idea whether I actually want to play this game in three months again for an extended period of time. Well they have my money already, so all good for them, but I find it rather disappointing. And most extensive DLC my ass, just because they add six maps instead of four. If they are of the same quality as vanilla and TSNP, they will just be as bland as the previous. Also do not forget that eleven weapons likely mean 4 new weapons with 2 variants each, two sidearms and a melee weapon.

However, they might fix all the stuff that is lacking in this game and therefore postponed the DLC for three months. It might just be too little too late considering that their next AAA title will release just a month later. I do not see BF1 having a lifecycle similar to BF4, especially if they do not make Premium insanely cheap or open up the DLC maps to everybody, which would devalidate Premium as well and piss off the players that bought it. I hope they will communicate sensibly why they postponed it.

edit:
@Dantheminigunfox

As for BC2 stats, this is true, but you were still handling weapons with a higher firerate and the spread worked in accordance to the recoil. Also the spread decrease was likely at BF3 levels as well meaning you did not need to reset your spread for two secodns before firing again.

BC2 levels of spread were unrivaled by lots of complainers because player counts were so low at 12v12. There weren't a bunch of players to face in a single engagement, where you could reliably force 1v1s, and engagement distances had the tendency to be fairly short, and as we know how spread works the hitrate is more consistent the closer you are to your target. Massive player counts are extremely unforgiving if your aim is bad or your positioning is bad; there's very little room for error, but you can makes a few mistakes in either category on smaller player counts because the concentration of enemies in a single area is much lower.

The problem with BF1 is Conquest Large. When playing TDM, Dom, Rush, or Frontlines (cause who plays War Pigeons?) suddenly the gunplay is solid and things are pretty well balanced. (The novelty of 32v32 massive vehicle induced battles is well dead and gone for me; I didn't enjoy it in BF4 either. It's more of a headache than a good time playing Conquest Large.) Conquest Small has the potential to be really good in BF1, but sadly I don't think it's popular enough to request its addition. Having a slower TTK is alright in a game with low player counts, but becomes overbearing with big ones.

I have more to say, but my phone's about to die so I don't want to lose the progress.

Prepare your laughbox

the Sebstalder is quiet good since it can 3hit kill at any distanc ,but In my opinion i actually thikn the sweeper is better, its got a really really fast firerate that can beat alll those Noobmaticos, Helregall adn shitguns in close quarters , and its also really accurate out to like l;ong range,. overall great allround gun, jsut my 2$ tho

can i say that i honestly felt the "big battlefield moments with a fuckton of people" more on rush in bf3 and bc2(24-32p mostly on console) than i did on cq large 64p on bf3 and bf4? how did this run for the highest numbers start anyway? i know i was part of it once, but i now forgot why...

About BC2's weapon stats? For starters, Den Kirson got "Amp" and "Kick" messed up with his BC2 charts. "Amp" is the angle of recoil increase while "Kick" is the modifier (not exactly sure how the modifier works, though).

Also, while ADS and still, the majority of BC2's weapons have perfect accuracy (that's 0.00 degrees of spread). Most guns were still very accurate while ADS and moving. As such, tap-firing is extremely effective in BC2.

I'm not sure what's up with DICE. The current player counts of Battlefield 1 are already relatively low. If the wait for future DLCs is too long, then they'll probably have very short lifespans (effectively making said DLCs redundant). This is especially if EA Battlefront 2 isn't a total flop like the last one and people actually stay to play this one.

The problem with BF1 is Conquest Large. When playing TDM, Dom, Rush, or Frontlines (cause who plays War Pigeons?) suddenly the gunplay is solid and things are pretty well balanced. (The novelty of 32v32 massive vehicle induced battles is well dead and gone for me; I didn't enjoy it in BF4 either. It's more of a headache than a good time playing Conquest Large.) Conquest Small has the potential to be really good in BF1, but sadly I don't think it's popular enough to request its addition. Having a slower TTK is alright in a game with low player counts, but becomes overbearing with big ones.

I have more to say, but my phone's about to die so I don't want to lose the progress.

That is a very interesting explanation and highlights the issues with having a game which emcompasses many game modes as opposed to focusing on a handful.

I quite enjoy conquest more than previous titles but I would not consider it anywhere near as good as Rush or Frothiness. Perhaps this is the reason why I enjoy BF1 so much, particularly the gun play.

With the exception of Ballroom Blitz, the First part on Seuz and 3rd and last points on Grappa, Rush is comparable in quality to BC2. (BC2 also has bad rush points, e.g last point on White Rush, also Rush was generally with 32 players)

BC2 Max players was 32 even for conquest, though maps were considerably smaller, except Heavy Metal and Harvest Day which are comparable to BF1 maps size wise. Conquest Small would be a good solution to this.